CHAPTER FIVE
Challenges of
Collaborative Planning
The collaborative-planning approach rests firmly on two foundations: credible scientific information and broadly inclusive participation. One of the challenges for collaborative planning will be
to develop the institutions and available expertise for scientific involvement while at the same time
operating in an open, public forum wherein all those with responsibility and interest are involved
throughout the process. Thus, this approach moves well beyond notions of public participation as
simply distinct stages in an otherwise technical process. It also moves beyond an expert-driven
model of planning wherein narrowly focused analysis considers a range of alternatives all within a
single-agency context. Because new strategies are needed for conservation of large-scale ecological
processes and because participation is necessary to achieve coordination across administrative or
governmental boundaries of responsibility, collaborative planning requires a more complex model of
both democratic processes and scientific engagement than past planning efforts.
The first two sections of this chapter address these issues and include substantive recommendations by the Committee on new institutions, processes, and resources. A following section addresses the issue of the Forest Service appeals processes in the context of collaborative planning.
The last section addresses a somewhat different issue: Given that sustainability is a global concern,
how does the collaborative-planning process proposed here fit with global criteria for sustainability?
5A. Building Decisions on a Strong Foundation
of Scientific Information
Public-land management has always
which scientists played a significant role
rested on scientific and technical knowledge,
suggest that new institutions, new funding
not simply the desires of the public or the
support, and new roles for scientists and
preferences of managers. Today, that commit-
researchers are emerging. Partly, these re-
ment to scientific credibility has grown inside
quirements have resulted in response to legal
and outside of the Forest Service. Managers
challenges. Partly, however, they have resulted
seek it, interest groups call for it, and the
from the recognition that monitoring, adaptive
public expects it. For this reason, the collabo-
management, and the complex system-level
rative-planning process outlined in this report
analysis necessary for sustainability simply
integrates scientists and researchers within
demand expertise beyond the capacity of most
that process.
managers and specialists. Research and
Recent experiences with bioregional
assessments and science-policy processes in
technology are moving so quickly that scientists and researchers must themselves partici-
121
pate in developing and evaluating the informa-
land management based on claims of an
tion needed for “scientifically credible” conser-
inadequate scientific basis for decisions. For
vation strategies and land-management ap-
example, in the Pacific Northwest, a series of
proaches.
lawsuits about the adequacy of protection for
This section attempts to answer two
species associated with old-growth forests as
questions: What does “scientifically credible”
well as threats to anadromous salmon stocks
mean in collaborative planning? And what
revealed that current management of federal
institutions and roles must the scientific
lands could not withstand scientific scrutiny.
community and the Forest Service develop to
This situation led the Forest Service and other
ensure that decisions are based upon credible
federal agencies to call for “scientifically
scientific information and can withstand
credible conservation strategies,” first specifi-
independent scientific review?
cally for the northern spotted owl and then for
old-growth species and salmon stocks.
New Roles for
Scientists in Land and
Resource Planning
Scientists, under the leadership of Jack
Ward Thomas, moved immediately from the
sidelines to center stage to construct scientifically credible strategies for management of the
federal forests of the Northwest. Their efforts
through four studies resulted in a set of alternatives for management of these lands, along
In the first round of forest plans under
with estimates of the ecological, economic, and
NFMA, managers and interdisciplinary teams
social effects of the alternatives. One of these
sorted though the available information to
options, with some modification, became the
design strategies that would allow the maxi-
President’s Plan for Northwest Forests; finally,
mum sustained yield of commodities and
the federal forests had a plan that withstood
amenities subject to “minimum management
legal challenge, albeit based on a strong com-
requirements” for protection of species and
mitment to monitoring and adaptive manage-
ecosystems. Scientists, by-and-large, sat on
ment. Rumblings about the adequacy of protec-
the sidelines during “forest planning.” How-
tion of species and ecosystems in the forest
ever, in response to the environmental laws of
plans also occurred in the early to mid 1990s
the early 1970s, in particular the Endangered
in most other regions in the country through
Species Act and the Clean Water Act, federal
protests, lawsuits, and attempts at congres-
and private funding for ecological research
sional action. Many of these disputes resulted
grew dramatically. Several major research
in a call for science and scientists to help sort
initiatives like the Man and the Biosphere
out the competing arguments. It was these
Project led to not only new scientific findings
forces that led to the assessments on species
but also new theories about ecological and
(e.g., the red-cockaded woodpecker, the inland
social systems.
trout species across the west, and the northern
As research expanded scientific knowl-
goshawk in the Southwest) and assessments of
edge about ecological and social systems, the
bioregions (e.g., the Southern Appalachia
new theories and data led to scientific con-
Assessment, the Interior Columbia Basin
cerns about the consequences of timber
Ecosystem Assessment, the Sierra Nevada
harvest on species, watersheds, and ecosys-
Ecosystem Assessment, and the Tongass
tems. Scientific concern combined with a
National Forest Assessment).
growing dissatisfaction among the public with
clearcutting led to legal challenges to public-
122
Each of these assessments carried consequences for the role of scientists and scientific
information in land and resource planning and
in an open, public process. This “assessment”
management. In both the Interior Columbia
process ensures that current scientific think-
Basin and the Tongass National Forest, the
ing is part of the planning process as well as a
scientists continue to be deeply involved in
sound foundation of credible information.
assessing current conditions and trends while
Issues in planning that have a significant
managers craft conservation strategies and
scientific content include: whether the tempo-
make initial estimates of effects. In both cases,
ral and spatial scales being considered are
scientists and managers are working to identify
appropriate for the questions being asked,
the issues and set up the conceptual frame-
whether all relevant information is being
work for analysis. In both cases, scientists
considered, whether that information is inter-
have reviewed the consistency of these strate-
preted in a manner consistent with current
gies and estimated effects with scientific
scientific understanding, whether the level of
understanding and have published their
risk to species and ecosystems associated with
analysis in a separate report. However, while
the alternatives is acknowledged, and whether
the above discussion has focused primarily on
the uncertainty of our knowledge is recognized.
the forestry component of the planning pro-
In the application of scientific understand-
cess, it needs to be emphasized that other uses
ing to managing large landscapes, we generally
and activities on National Forest System lands
are not talking about a classic application of
(e.g., grazing, mining, fire, road construction,
the scientific method. Hypothesis testing at the
recreation, and flow withdrawals and diver-
landscape scale though controlled experiments
sions) can similarly have major impacts on
is difficult. Rather, we are talking about scien-
planning, management, and attainment of
tific knowledge as a set of working hypotheses
sustainability. Their exclusion from the above
that are informed by experiments, demonstra-
discussion is not meant to relegate them to a
tions, argument, and reflection. Over time,
lower level of concern.
those hypotheses are retained, revised, and
In sum, the Forest Service (and other
discarded as needed. Scientists expect them to
agencies in most cases) has embraced the
change; eternal truths are hard to find. Often,
notion that land- and resource-management
their revision occurs at the most inopportune
planning must make effective use of scientific
time for managers. Nonetheless, a scientific
and technical analysis and review. Now, the
way of thinking is at the heart of adaptive
agency and research community must develop
management.
the institutions and procedures necessary for
To further complicate matters, there is
collaborative planning to involve scientists
rarely complete unanimity among scientists.
effectively and appropriately as a matter of
On some issues, there are a variety of hypoth-
normal procedure.
eses having near-equal support among different groups of scientists. On other issues,
Integrating Scientific
Information into
Collaborative Planning
strong support exists for a particular working
hypothesis, although a dissenting opinion will
almost always exist.
As a result of numerous discussions of
this topic, the Committee anticipates that the
scientific community can expect to be asked to
help with at least five different tasks in collabo-
Collaborative planning rests upon a
rative planning:
foundation of scientific information developed
by scientists and other knowledgeable people
123
Creating Knowledge
of Relevance to
Collaborative Planning
During assessments, specific problems or
issues of concern arise for which inadequate
information exists. Sometimes scientists are
needed to undertake traditional research
(hypothesis testing), and at other times they
are asked to summarize the state of knowledge.
This second role is very important because
many of the practical issues in land and
resource management have not been addressed
by traditional research. Such issues include:
determining the habitat requirements of owls,
the effectiveness of fuel breaks in stopping
wildfires, the growth and mortality patterns of
riparian forests, or the mimicking of natural
patterns of cleared areas in forests to make
clearcuts more acceptable to the public. Generally, scientists prepare white papers that
synthesize the state of knowledge related to
issues. Given that these questions relate to
expected results of management activities,
scientists play an important service in relating
theoretical models to actual practices.
Developing the Integrative
Science for Bioregional
Assessments
what scale to use are critical questions that
must be answered before scientists can provide
a scientific foundation for conservation strategies. Answering these questions requires
integration of different types of information
across many disciplines and at scales not
usually encountered in traditional research.
Furthermore, compromises in information
quality may result when attempting to answer
a wide range of questions.
Helping Managers
Understand the Application
of Scientific and Technical
Knowledge
As new policy requirements are issued
from Congress, the administration, or the
courts, scientists are often called upon to help
interpret them from a scientific standpoint and
ensure that the resulting instructions to the
field have scientific credibility. The regulatory
language for implementing ecological
sustainability developed by the Committee
uses the concepts of “ecosystem integrity” and
“species viability” as central concepts. Without
a doubt, scientists will be involved in interpreting the meaning of these concepts and working
with managers to develop field-tested methods
for implementing such rules.
Based on the assessments, the first step
in planning is defining the desired future
The shift to a bioregional and large-
condition across large landscapes and
landscape scale creates a different sort of
bioregions. As resource specialists, planners,
challenge for scientists. Understanding large-
and managers undertake these tasks, they will
scale processes requires a new theoretical
have a multitude of questions about how to
approach and a new integration across disci-
define the desired future conditions in terms
plines. For example, in the Interior Columbia
that lead to measurable strategies for achieving
Basin Ecosystem Assessment, scientists were
them. They will need scientific assistance in
asked how to assess the state of different fish
translating conservation strategies derived from
stocks in the 160-million-acre Columbia Basin,
the assessments into practical management
the state of forest health in the northern Rocky
approaches that can be expected to achieve the
Mountains, and the implications of placing
desired goals. Answering these questions, as
roads in roadless areas. What to measure and
124
vital as they are to the planning effort, is not
the traditional domain of research scientists.
As specialists and managers begin to
implement strategic plans for large landscapes,
they will need the assistance of scientists to
help craft creative ways to accomplish the
Evaluating the Use
of Scientific Information
in Planning and
Implementation
plans’ objectives. In recent experience, landscape-scale strategic plans, like the Northwest
Once strategic plans or sets of projects
Forest Plan, have relied upon “default prescrip-
are proposed (along with estimates of their
tions” developed by scientists within the
effects), policy-makers, interest groups, and
planning process to implement the conserva-
the public often challenge their scientific
tion strategies with the full expectation that
bases. These “science-consistency checks” and
local knowledge developed in the field would
field project reviews are just beginning, but are
lead to more-effective, site-specific approaches.
quickly becoming an important new role for
As might be expected, these prescriptions often
scientists in collaborative planning.
do not fit field conditions very well, yet managers are understandably reluctant to vary the
standard prescription without assistance and
field review by scientists. Adaptive management simply necessitates a new role for scientists in not only developing ideas for conservation strategies and how to achieve them but
also working more closely with technical
specialists and managers in applying these
New Institutions
Needed to Support
Scientific Information
and Review
ideas and adapting them to field conditions.
Independent review is essential if scien-
Helping to Design
Effectiveness-Monitoring
Procedures and AdaptiveManagement Experiments
Monitoring is a key component of collaborative planning. Yet, there are few standard
procedures to draw upon for designing effectiveness-monitoring procedures for the millions
of acres in a strategic plan for large landscapes. This deficiency especially holds true
with the limited funds available for such work.
Selecting an efficient, yet dependable, set of
measures will require scientific involvement.
tific and political credibility are to be achieved
in a collaborative-planning process. Thus, the
Committee makes four major recommendations to provide for scientific review.
Forest Service Research
Forest Service Research (FSR) will need to
shoulder major responsibilities for the assessments, monitoring, and adaptive-management
aspects of collaborative planning. Forest
Service Research, as an existing institution,
will need to provide the day-to-day information,
evaluation, and advice to address the five tasks
listed above. Although these efforts may be
assisted by scientists in other federal agencies
and from outside the federal government,
Forest Service Research must form its core.
This effort will call for an expanded mission for
this branch of the Forest Service and will
125
5-1. Why Science Is Not Enough: Understanding the
1960s Controversy on the Bitterroot National Forest
When Harold Anderson came to the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) as Supervisor in the late
1950s, he saw the forest through the eyes of a professional forester with a master’s degree in
forestry from Yale University. What he saw worried him: uneven stands of commercial timber
with old growth mixed throughout the stand that was overstocked by silvicultural standards
and a target for disease. So, in a effort to “get modern,” a timber-management plan was
developed by Ray Karr, hired specifically for this task. Indeed, he was immediately faced with
huge fires coming in consecutive years and leaving more than 30,000 acres of burned-over
ridge lines behind. So, Ray’s directions were to accelerate the harvest of old growth to make
way for younger, more productive forests; to emphasize disease control, especially for mistletoe in the Douglas fir and pine beetles; and to improve the availability of timber to the local
sawmills, partly through salvage efforts. In 1950, only 3 million board feet were harvested
from the BNF; by 1955 it was 14 mbf; and by 1964, through the timber-management plan,
the BNF sold 70 mbf and built nearly 60 miles of roads.
The goal to modernize forestry through scientific methods of timber management applied to
all of the national forests, and the BNF was one of the most advanced forests in Region 1.
Indeed, one reason that the BNF could rapidly respond to this national call was because it
had a cadre of old Civilian Conservation Corp road locators, allowing it to garnish more of the
region’s road-building budget than other forests and thereby access more areas to sell.
Another reason, however, was its application of the reforestation technique of “terracing” on
steep slopes. The costs of reforestation through hand preparation and planting averaged
require allocating a significant portion of the
sustained commitment to it from Forest Ser-
energies of this organization to supporting land
vice Research.
and resource planning and management.
The Forest Service is blessed with its own
Of the five tasks mentioned above, only
the first one has been the traditional domain of
research organization, one of the finest natu-
Forest Service Research on a regular basis.
ral-resource research organizations in the
Requests for help on the other four have been
world. Forest Service Research has fought for
very occasional and are seen as “special
and achieved a mission that emphasizes
assignments,” extraordinary activities not
scholarly work and allows considerable inde-
related to the “real work” of the research unit.
pendence in defining a research agenda apart
All this must change if collaborative planning
from the immediate needs of the National
is to have a reasonable chance of success.
Forest System. Although making collaborative
planning work will require efforts both inside
and outside the federal government, we have
reached one inescapable conclusion about the
key to its success: collaborative planning can
succeed only if there is a strong, deep, and
126
National Forest System
National Forest System (NFS) technical
staff must also shoulder major responsibilities
to facilitate collaborative planning and scien-
about $100 per acre, and had an average survival rate of 20% on harsh, south-facing slopes.
Using machinery to prepare slash for burning and create terraces allowed the BNF to use
machine planting at about $50 per acre with an average seedling survival of more than 80%
on the south-facing slopes.
Technically, terracing had been developed for slopes of less than 30% as a means for trapping all available moisture and eliminating competing vegetation; its goals were to improve
reforestation rates and to decrease costs. However, it worked so well to conserve moisture
and decrease mortality among seedlings, that it was tried all over. Knowing that this method
was still experimental, the BNF brought researchers in at every step to review the plans and
the field conditions.
As Orville Daniels, Supervisor on the BNF from 1970 to 1974 eloquently summarizes,
clearcutting and terracing was cost-effective and technically successful and it created no
watershed problems from siltation, but it was socially unacceptable. The clearcutting controversy arose on the BNF because the opinion leaders and key people in the adjoining communities never participated in reviewing this decision until they saw areas of the forest they
loved treated in a way that offended them.
By 1969, when Senator Metcalf asked the dean of the University of Montana Forestry School
to convene an independent faculty group to review the management practices on the BNF,
the underlying reason for the controversy had spread across the nation. People expected to
participate in reviewing agency plans, and they valued the many multiple uses and benefits
from the forests, not just the timber production. The simple statement by the University
Committee, “multiple use as a reality is not practiced on the BNF,” sums up the public
perspective of efforts to concentrate management on efficient, scientific timber production.
tifically sound management activities. While
NFS scientists and technical staff are one
relying on FSR and nonagency scientific
step closer to management issues and prob-
committees is important for ensuring the
lems, and they develop relationships with land
scientific credibility of management decisions,
managers that can provide more rapid atten-
a key step in promoting sound decisions that
tion to pressing issues and more direct links to
will withstand external review is an increased
scientific information. NFS technical staff can
capacity for NFS to effectively develop, imple-
provide an important link between science and
ment, and evaluate scientifically based plans
policymakers, but they may lack the external
and management strategies and actions. A
credibility of FSR. Clearly, both FSR and NFS
diverse and effective cadre of professionals
have important contributions to make to
grounded in science must be provided for in
ensuring sound and credible collaborative
NFS. They must have support to develop and
planning. Their new roles and responsibilities
maintain technical skills to allow them to
need to be articulated in expanded missions
operate effectively between scientists and
for both and supplemented with the budgets
policymakers. To be credible, their efforts
necessary to fulfill these critical new tasks.
should be subject to open technical review.
While FSR has an important and central
role to fulfill in enhancing collaborative plan-
127
ning, it cannot and should not shoulder this
Tongass National Forest land-management plan
responsibility alone. Care must be taken to
(Everest et al., 1997) is a step in this direction.
ensure the ongoing credibility of FSR and to
In this case, the scientists who conducted the
maintain its solid foundation of basic research.
assessment as part of the land-management
NFS technical staff must adopt a more central
planning process evaluated the alternatives and
role as an interface between policymakers and
analysis of management effects based on their
the research community and between
“consistency” with the body of scientific infor-
policymakers and managers on issues bearing
mation in the assessment. The science-consis-
on the scientific basis for decision making.
tency check can be used to achieve consistency
While FSR can, for example, help create and
through iterative application that involves
evaluate science-based protocols for monitoring
successive improvements in how scientists state
or assessments; help develop the scientific
their findings and in how the framers of man-
basis for creating, evaluating, and modifying
agement policy interpret the implications of
standards and guides; develop science-based
those findings. In the case of the Tongass
frameworks; and provide or secure independent
National Forest planning effort, the science-
review of the scientific foundation of plans, NFS
consistency check was itself subjected to
technical staff should bear responsibility for
independent scientific peer review.
assisting, enabling, and ensuring managers’
Because a finding of a lack of consistency
ability to apply this guidance to their day-to-
can be a point of appeal or legal challenge, a
day management decisions. Additionally, NFS
thoughtful, thorough check can help avoid that
technical staff are in a position to more directly
problem. Questions that would be asked in a
involve and benefit from the insights and
science-consistency check include the follow-
knowledge that managers possess about
ing: Are the temporal and spatial scales being
trends, impacts, and on-the-ground realities.
considered useful for the resource-conservation
issues being addressed? Was all relevant
Evaluation
Institutions and procedures must be
established to evaluate, on a regular basis, the
use of scientific thought in planning and
implementation. These reviews serve both to
provide independent verification of the scientific foundation of plans and their implementation and to highlight and reward creative
approaches to the challenging issues faced in
the management of the national forests and
grasslands. The expectation of an evaluation at
the end of the planning process should encourage collaboration among managers, specialists,
and scientists as the plans are developed.
There should be an evaluation of the use
of scientific and technical information in strategic planning (i.e., an evaluation of the consistency of strategic planning and plans with
scientific and technical understanding). The
“science-consistency” check undertaken by the
128
information considered? Was this information
interpreted in a manner consistent with current scientific understanding? Has the level of
risk to species and ecosystems associated with
the alternatives been acknowledged and reported? Has the uncertainty of our knowledge
been recognized?
Field reviews of projects should also be conducted. These reviews should address two basic
questions: Are the proposed actions a credible
attempt to meet the goals of the plans from a
scientific and technical viewpoint? Were the
actions taken in the field consistent with what
was proposed.? The interagency PACFISH reviews
could serve as a model for this effort, assuming
that the interagency committee was broadened to
consider all the values recognized in the plans.
Science and Technology
Advisory Board
energies from Forest Service Research and the
scientific community in general.
The board’s members would include
scientists and other specialists from a broad
The Chief of the Forest Service should
range of disciplines: biology, ecology, earth
establish a science and technology advisory
sciences, economics, sociology, and other
board with a primary goal of helping collabora-
fields. The members should come from a wide
tive planning become a reality on the national
variety of organizations doing scientific work,
forests and grasslands. This board would
including academia, industry, independent
provide highly qualified and independent
laboratories, and American Indian tribes. There
advice to the Forest Service to assure that the
should be a variety of backgrounds represented
most current and complete scientific and
in the diverse and well-qualified group to help
technical knowledge is used as the basis of
ensure a broad range of outside perspectives.
land and resource management. The board
The membership should consist of an
would help the Forest Service effectively
interdisciplinary group of nationally known
accomplish the suite of tasks, such as those
scientists and planning experts from outside
listed above, important to successful imple-
the National Forest System. The variety of
mentation of collaborative planning. They
scientific and technical specialties represented
would be especially useful in advising the
on the board should span the range of re-
Forest Service on how to accomplish the many
sources, issues, values, and geographic regions
tasks that will require new directions and
encountered in national forest management. In
5-2. Advisory Boards
The Scientific Roundtable on Biodiversity convened by the Chequamegon and Nicolet national
forests in Wisconsin serves as an example of how advisory boards have assisted the Forest
Service in land management. Two advisory boards, convened in 1992, were made up of teams
of scientists and sociologists who subsequently provided reports that have influenced land
management on these two national forests. One group focused on scientific issues, particularly
biodiversity; the other focused on socioeconomic aspects of managing the forest.
The Scientific Roundtable assessed particular risks involving diversity in northern Wisconsin.
Each risk was ranked according to its severity, possible responsiveness to changes in management, and uncertainty. The Roundtable concluded that many biodiversity concerns were best
approached on a regional or landscape scale.
The Roundtable developed 23 sets of management recommendations that emphasized how
particular risks could be mitigated or eliminated and discussed how uncertainties might be
resolved via future research. The Roundtable also recommended that further research monitoring is necessary to more accurately detect threats to biodiversity and to assess how threatened
elements respond to changes in resource management.
The Roundtable was successful in terms of bringing science to bear on the complex and difficult issues surrounding biodiversity. The research and management recommendations are now
being used to influence management processes on these two national forests in Wisconsin.
129
addition to members, the activities of the board
may be enhanced by consultants invited by a
committee chair to serve on an “as needed”
basis on various issues to which their expertise
is relevant. The number of consultants is
flexible, and their one-year term can be extended indefinitely. Consultants would be
expected to meet the same standards of technical expertise as the members.
The 20-year history of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of the Environmental Protec-
• Address novel scientific problems or
principles
• Integrate science into agency actions
in new ways
• Influence long-term technology
development
• Deal with problems that transcend
organizational boundaries
• Strengthen the agency’s overall
capabilities
tion Agency (EPA) could serve as a model for
some elements of the Forest Service board.
Because the requests for projects now exceed
the number that the boards can address, the
EPA SAB has adopted the following criteria for
prioritizing requests:
• Serve leadership interests
• Deal with controversial issues
These criteria may useful for the Forest
Service to consider in establishing this board.
• Impact overall environmental
protection
5B. Integrating Scientific and Public Deliberation
Deliberation is a process in which a
stand them or the implications of alternative
variety of perceptions, interpretations, claims,
strategies and actions. They also vary in terms
and contentions are openly discussed, cri-
of their contentiousness: some issues involve
tiqued, and challenged. Simply put, delibera-
multiple goals and diverse social values, and
tion represents democracy in action. When
require extended public discussion to define
used as a process for finding areas of agree-
desired future conditions as well as strategies
ment amongst scientists, stakeholders, or the
to achieve them. Thus, the nature and quality
public, deliberation needs to ensure
of public and scientific issues argues for
inclusivity, openness, safety of expression, and
different approaches to deliberation. A collabo-
respect for divergent views and positions.
rative-planning process needs have the flexibil-
Clearly, a deliberative approach to participa-
ity to treat issues differently.
tion takes time, involves numerous discussions
The more that multiple goals and diverse
across a wide cross-section of participants,
social values are involved, the more that
and seldom leads to full consensus or complete
stakeholders representing the range of values
agreement. Nonetheless, only through delibera-
in contention must be convened in a delibera-
tive processes can collaborative planning
tive process aimed at developing options that
create credible scientific strategies or public
reflect those different goals and
and stakeholder support. Without this legiti-
values.“Stakeholders” are all affected parties,
macy, it is difficult for planning to make a
including other federal agencies, state and
difference or have worthwhile results.
local governments, tribes, and the public. And
Public issues vary widely. In land- and
the more complex and ambiguous the scientific
resource-management planning, they vary in
and technical information concerning an issue,
terms of whether there is sufficient scientific
the more that experts must be involved to
and technical information available to under-
assist with and provide credibility to the public
130
Table 4-1. A typology of information.
State of Knowledge
Agreement on Values
High
Low
Well-Developed
Routine analysis with periodic
stakeholder and expert review
Emphasis on stakeholder deliberation
with periodic expert review
Tentative/Gaps
Disagreements/
Research Needed
Emphasis on expert deliberation
with stakeholder review
Emphasis on both stakeholder and
expert deliberation (wicked problems)
deliberation. Constructing a typology (see
cal integrity and productivity. Achieving this
Table 4-1), with the state of knowledge as one
integration requires democratic processes, in
dimension, and the agreement on values as the
which people participate in designing effective
other, creates four assessment and planning
strategies and work together to carry them out.
situations that differ in the need for and type
Thus, the simple democratic premise that
of stakeholder and expert deliberation.
people should participate in making decisions
Developing conservation strategies for
about issues important to them and which
species and ecosystems as well as treatments
may affect them lies at the heart of
and actions that serve as pathways to desired
sustainability. Indeed, working toward
future conditions are generally problems for
sustainability allows this generation to act as a
which no one solution will satisfy all stakeholders
steward for future generations, as well.
or enjoy complete consensus among the scientific
Our proposed collaborative-planning
communities. In these cases, both assessments
process rests on strong principles of democratic
and decision processes must bring stakeholders
participation in planning and decision making.
and experts together in an extended deliberative
Public deliberation is a concept that expresses
process that involves multidimensional tradeoffs
the democratic ideal of self-governance. In a
based on tentative knowledge.
collaborative-planning process, participants
In general, ongoing deliberation builds
include: other agencies, other governments,
familiarity with public issues, the diversity of
tribes, interested organizations, communities
public viewpoints, and the complexity of the
and citizens. The terms “public involvement” or
ecological and social systems. When planning is
“public participation” emerged in the 1960s as
not an “event” but a continuous activity, then
correctives for government decisions contrary
deliberation can build trust and legitimacy for
to the will of the people or affected stakehold-
public action. Regular expert and public delib-
ers. Today, formal public-review processes are
eration also provides a long-term forum for
now required for nearly all types of government
public, scientific, and agency learning.
decisions. However, these terms refer to formal
and informal administrative processes that
A Participatory
Approach Is at the
Heart of Democracy
allow the public to provide issues for consideration in planning, comments on proposed
government actions or expenditures of public
money, or comments on proposed government
regulations. A collaborative-planning process
rests on continuous, open participation by all
stakeholders, interested parties, and the
Sustainability connects economic and
public. Simply providing issues for consider-
social welfare with the maintenance of ecologi-
131
5-3. Public Participation in the Huron-Manistee National
Forest Forest-Plan Revision
In 1995, the Huron-Manistee National Forest (HMNF) and the Eastern Regional Office
developed a strategy to revise the forest plan. The overall vision was that the revised Forest
Plan would be widely endorsed at the end of the process. The process would be open and
fair, with employees and the public working in a collaborative and cooperative manner. A
brochure, “Invitation to Participate,” was developed that explained forest planning and the
revision process and invited the public to actively participate.
In June 1996, a forest-plan-revision “need-for-change” process was initiated.
The public was invited to comment at 13 public meetings throughout HMNF on items that
they felt needed to be changed in the forest plan, and on how they would like to participate
in the process.
2500 interested public were also contacted by mail and invited to participate, either by
writing or by attending the public meetings. During each step of the process, the media
throughout Michigan were contacted and informed of events and results.
A content analysis of all suggestions was completed. More than 150 statements were
identified as change, no-change, and discussion items. Discussion items consisted of
suggestions that were in conflict with each other and highly charged issues, such as early
successional habitat, old growth, allowable sale quantity, and roads. Various ideas and
suggestions on how the public desired to participate in the process were documented. A
common desire was to have public working group sessions that openly discussed the
discussion items.
The need-for-change items and the proposal to conduct working group sessions were
shared with the public at an open meeting and through mailings. The public commented,
and modifications were made based on their feedback.
HMNF identified 12 discussion items (hot topics/no agreement), and briefing papers presenting all aspects of each topic were developed.
The briefing papers were discussed at a two-day public meeting. The purposes of the meetings were to determine whether all aspects of each discussion item had been adequately
captured in the briefing papers and to review information about each item. On the basis of
feedback at the meeting, the briefing papers were revised.
Twelve one-day public working group sessions were conducted to discuss each discussion
item. Pre-work packets were mailed out two to four weeks prior to each working group
session. Experts were invited to present information, and the public debated and discussed
the issues at the working group sessions. HMNF documented areas of agreement and areas
where there was a diversity of opinion and the reasons. All participants had equal opportunity to participate. HMNF documented each working group session and mailed the results
of each session to participants and interested publics.
132
HMNF completed the need-for-change process by preparing a forest-plan need-for-change
assessment that visibly incorporated the results of the public-participation process. The
draft document was reviewed at a public meeting and revised on the basis of the feedback
received at the meeting. A finalized need-for-change assessment was mailed to participants
and interested publics. Interest-group representatives; individuals speaking for themselves
and their families; tribal, state, and federal government representatives; and Forest Service
leadership team and staff all participated in the process.
In summary, the public participated throughout the need-for-change process in a manner
it selected, in equal standing, and in partnership with the Forest Service and other stakeholders. A full spectrum of diversity and diverging opinions were represented throughout
the process. Participants got to know and understand each other. Experts participated as a
source of information. The Forest Service role was to facilitate, keep the public on course,
prepare and present information, be neutral, and listen. After listening, the need-forchange assessment was developed and widely accepted by the public.
ation or comments on proposals is nowhere
• Coming to public judgment can occur
near sufficient for a collaborative-planning
when sufficient deliberation results in
process. Thus, this report avoids these terms
wise and considered decisions.
to reduce confusion.
Rather, the concept of a “participatory
• Public review of performance by federal
agencies responsible for developing and
process” is used to refer to democratic decision
implementing policies is an important
making and “public deliberation” is used to
public duty and needs to become an on-
refer to the ongoing dialogue across multiple
going part of the planning process
stakeholders, scientists, and the public in a
through monitoring and external review.
participatory process. In addition to dialogue,
however, the public has two other important
responsibilities: to contribute to wise decision
making and to contribute to evaluating the
performance of government programs and
activities. Thus, there are three primary roles
for the public in a participatory process:
• Deliberation of public issues means that
people contribute to developing the
Contributing to
Building Decisions
and Evaluating
Performance
information needed for planning, join
in debating public purposes, and come
Coming to public judgment (i.e., defining
to better understand the perspectives
desired future conditions) is a time-consuming
of others interested in, and knowledge-
process when overlapping public purposes must
able about, the lands and resources.
be integrated within complex strategies for land
and resource conservation and management.
This process cannot be rushed, but it can be
expedited by maintaining an ongoing dialogue.
Ongoing processes of public deliberation create
133
5-4. Public Participation in Plan Revision
on the White Mountain, Green Mountain,
and Finger Lakes National Forests
A few years ago, the planners on the White, Green, and Finger Lakes national forests in the Northeast got together to develop a strategy for forest-plan revision. Though we needed to write three
separate forest plans, we knew we had a large number of “constituents” in common who wanted
consistency in our approaches. We also knew we could do a much better job together, harnessing the
creative energies of the group. We wanted to create a new process wherein people (the public) would
be involved up-front helping develop planning materials, rather than critically reviewing products
created by the agency.
We reviewed past planning efforts and research, trying to use the best of each that would take
advantage of the collaborative New England culture. There have been a number of successful planning efforts in the past, such as the Northern Forest Lands Council and the New Hampshire State
Forest Resources Plan. These endeavors made it clear that the Forests would have to work closely
together to accomplish ecosystem-sustainability goals and resolve the social issues. It was also clear
that people would not tolerate being excluded from the process. This “no-surprises” philosophy
evolved into a “plan for the plan” with four basic principles:
1) Nonagency people would be brought into the process from the beginning. They would be asked to
help identify issues, determine what information was required, and decide how the public would be
involved.
2) Information would be widely shared. Virtually any information developed by the agency would be
shared with others. People who are interested in forest-plan revision would be urged to bring their
data to the table.
3) Participants would learn from one another. Meetings of people interested in plan revision would
be, among other things, educational forums. People were to express their views and provide information to support their points. Forest Service employees would be participants rather than controllers
of the process.
4) Joint problem solving would be expected. No single organization or individual would be responsible
for solving the problem. Everyone would share responsibility for helping devise solutions.
The process design we created divided public-participation phases into discrete units so that people
could come in and feel productive, whether it was for one of the units or the whole process. We
wanted people to understand that we wanted their involvement for the long haul, but we also wanted
to give them the opportunity to step out and take a breather instead of burning out.
The units in this pre-notice of intent or “prescoping” portion of plan revision included outreach,
public planning groups, local planning groups, technical working groups, and public forums, which
culminated in the issuance of a notice of intent and the transition to the more formally defined
phases of forest-plan revision.
Outreach: The Green Mountain and White Mountain national forests held seven geographically
scattered sessions, including a joint session in Boston. The Finger Lakes held two sessions. We
134
asked participants to identify what they thought needed to be revised in the forest plans. We
received thousands of comments. The comments were analyzed, summarized, and grouped into
issues and subissues.
Public Planning Groups: Sessions were held on each forest. Three weekday sessions were held on
the White Mountain National Forest and five were held on the Green Mountain National Forest. We
held five sessions on the Finger Lakes National Forest, and varied the times from weekdays to
weekends to consecutive weeknights to draw a diverse group of participants. The public planning
group on the White Mountain National Forest reviewed issue briefs developed by Forest Service
specialists for each of the issues, while the Green Mountain National Forest and Finger Lakes
National Forest public planning groups developed issue briefs in concert with Forest Service staff.
Those sessions built upon the work of the outreach comments and gave participants a chance to
exchange knowledge about the issues. Planning-group members also raised questions for the technical working group in the succeeding phase, which they believed needed to be answered in revision.
Local Planning Groups: Originally, we planned to have about a dozen local planning groups
established and facilitated in the Northeast, from New York City to Maine. Our intent was to allow
interested people to come together in diverse groups for a few hours each month and discuss the
issues. The results of these meetings were then to be carried forward to the public planning group
on each forest. This effort failed. Funding was insufficient to provide paid facilitators for the discussions. Groups were encouraged to form on a self-directed basis; however, that never really took off.
The next two phases are more theoretical in nature because we have not yet reached them. The
Green Mountain and Finger Lakes forests are under the moratorium on revision. Work is proceeding on the White Mountain National Forest in the following two phases:
Technical Working Groups: During this phase, the latest scientific information concerning each
issue will be collected. The degree of scientific controversy will be identified, as will relative risks to
sustainability. Literature reviews will be provided for each issue area, followed by symposiums to
foster interaction between scientists and the public. Further work will follow to answer some of the
questions raised. Our emphasis in this phase will be to bring scientific information forward in a
manner understandable to the lay public.
Public Forums: Our goal in this phase is to develop a vision for each national forest that, in a few
paragraphs, outlines the role the forest will play in sustaining ecosystems and meeting social needs
in the Northeast.
Each phase builds upon the results of the previous phase. Our revision efforts will focus on those
areas where a need for change has been identified. The public has helped to describe and clarify the
issues. In addition, people have been engaged in an effort that allows them to express their values,
share information, and build trust. We have focused on partnerships, collaboration, and involvement by all. The knowledge gained and the relationships formed can then be brought forward
through the NEPA process and into implementation and annual plan updates. Positive outcomes to
this approach have included continuing work, by the public, on the Green Mountain and Finger
Lakes forests on nonrevision projects, such as trail maintenance, and an increase in the number of
forest partners and volunteers.
Mary Krueger and Chuck Prausa for the Joint Core Planning Team
135
a reservoir of public understanding that can be
forests and grasslands necessitate careful,
drawn upon when difficult issues arise or
independent review by outside scientists,
unexpected events occur, such as hurricanes,
interested parties, and knowledgeable people.
floods, and fires. In this way, strong relation-
Expert and scientific review is essential, but
ships can provide for efficient action by provid-
not sufficient to ensure public acceptability or
ing the context for considering what to do in
simple common sense. Incorporating new
light of past decisions. This is the payoff for
methods of performance evaluation that are
taking the time to build deliberative capacity.
open, inclusive, and independent will be
Engaging the American public in deliberating the future of the national forests and
necessary for building trust.
Important to evaluating the strategies and
grasslands is more than just talking to people
treatments for achieving desired future condi-
living near the public lands. Pinchot set forth
tions is a monitoring process designed to
the principle that local decisions should be
measure performance against expected out-
made on local grounds at a time when local
comes. While the design of a monitoring
meant “people living nearby.” Today, people
process may be as simple as measuring water
who live great distances from the forests and
temperature and water flow and be carried out
grasslands feel strong attachments to them and
by school children, it can also be as complex
want to participate in making decisions about
as a research experiment and engage the
them. Just as transportation systems have
research community. Without measurement
changed the meaning of “local” in decision
and maintenance of good records for historical
making, information technologies have trans-
comparisons, it is difficult to assess long-term
formed the abilities of people living far from
performance. The recent Government Perfor-
public lands to join in deliberating the future of
mance and Review Act sets performance
those lands. New methods of public dialogue
evaluation as a high priority for government
need to be invented in order for planning to
agencies. Making that process an open and
effectively engage the American people.
public one can greatly contribute to the resto-
In adaptive management, the review and
ration of trust in Forest Service management of
evaluation of performance is an integral part of
national forests and grasslands and its com-
stewardship. Complex strategies for conserving
mitment to achieving sustainability.
and managing the resources of the national
5C. Protests and Appeals of Federal Decisions
Federal agencies differ greatly as to if,
like the Environmental Protection Agency, do
when, and how their decisions can be appealed
not allow administrative appeals after deci-
or protested by the public. A potential impedi-
sions are final, only judicial review.
ment to multiagency planning and decision
Several times we have heard reference to
processes is the differences in timing and
the differences between the Bureau of Land
approach to resolving protests and appeals. In
Management and Forest Service appeals pro-
the case of federal land management, both the
cesses. At the level of the Forest Plan, the
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Man-
primary difference is that for the Bureau of Land
agement allow the public to protest or appeal
Management the appeals are predecisional and
their decisions, whereas neither the Fish and
for the Forests Service they are postdecisional.
Wildlife Service nor the National Marine Fisheries Service allow appeals. These agencies,
136
For the Bureau of Land Management, this
means that after the final EIS is published, but
before the ROD is signed, “protest appeals” can
of Land Management state directors will make
be filed. The issues these appeals can raise are
the decisions. In that case, the decisions of the
limited to those issues raised for the record in
Bureau of Land Management would be open to
the planning process. The ROD is the final
predecisional protest, but the Forest Service
agency action. The next step is a lawsuit. For
decisions could be appealed after the ROD. This
the Forest Service, a postdecisional appeals
makes coordinated planning for large-scale
process means that after the final decision is
policy decisions very difficult.
published in the ROD, an appeal can be filed,
Currently, the Forest Service regulations
and the Forest Service must consider it and
(36 CFR Part 215 and Part 217) create barriers
respond. The Chief is the deciding officer for
to collaboration with other federal agencies. As
appeals of land- and resource-management
generally applied, the existing rules limit the
plans.
opportunity for other federal agencies to review
There are several issues that these obser-
and comment upon proposed courses of action
vations raise regarding our proposed collabora-
after the Forest Service has chosen a preferred
tive-planning process.
alternative based on comments on the draft
1) In the context of multiple-agency plan-
environmental impact statement (DEIS). The
ning and decision making, what is the
current regulations do not allow other federal
effect of appeals processes that assume
agencies to raise issues of concern after the
single-agency planning and decision
final EIS and ROD are published. Unless
making?
agency planners and managers make a con-
2) Should large-landscape planning have
an appeals process that is predecisional
instead of, or in addition to, the existing
postdecisional appeal process?
certed and successful effort to seek out comment on a preferred alternative after reviewing
the comments on the DEIS, concerns of other
agencies cannot be raised during the
postdecisional appeals process now used by
3) How can small-landscape planning
the Forest Service. As a result, significant
best address the statutory requirements
differences are raised to the highest levels of
for project-level, postdecisional appeals?
the agencies for resolution, creating political
discord among agencies, or unaddressed
Appeals Process
issues reduce the success of implementation or
threaten future actions.
It is the Committee’s expectation that, if
One question that must be dealt with is
the Forest Service works with the other land-
whether the current appeals processes in the
management and appropriate regulatory
Forest Service and other federal agencies need
agencies in the early stages of the assessment
modification to recognize the multiagency
and decision processes, relationships will be
planning processes of the future. The current
built and problems addressed before they must
appeals processes assume single-agency plan-
be dealt with by managers close to the field.
ning processes and single-agency decisions. In
Especially because adaptive management will
one of the only instances of multiple-agency
necessarily require the capacity to review,
planning and decision making, the Northwest
evaluate, and change management activities on
Forest Plan, the decisions were made at the
a regular basis, the federal agencies will need
Secretary level to avoid the problem of inconsis-
to become partners rather than adversaries in
tent appeals rules, among other reasons. In the
working toward achieving sustainability.
case of the Columbia Basin project, the expec-
However, the formal rules need to encourage,
tation is that regional foresters and the Bureau
facilitate, and ensure that strong relationships
137
are built and maintained if stewardship is to
of appeals on forest plans, the Service is not
maintain or achieve ecological sustainability.
always able to meet this deadline.
Recommendation
mended that the forest plans should not be
The first Committee of Scientists recom-
Consider developing a consistent approach across federal agencies for addressing
protests and appeals. The Committee recommends that the different agencies form a
multiagency task group to carefully identify
and examine the specific impediments to
coordinated planning and decision making,
opportunities for developing a more harmonized
approach, and the development of an appeals
process that is consistent across agencies and
encourages participation in collaborative
planning. The agencies’ differences in experience and perspective on appeals and protests
will provide useful comparisons for this effort.
The Committee recognizes that legislation
currently requires the Forest Service to allow
project-level appeals after a final decision is
made. While changing legislation requires a
greater level of effort than that needed to
change agency regulations, the appeal requirements need to be analyzed in the context of the
new approaches to planning and recommendations for changes made to ensure that a collaborative-planning process can succeed.
Predecisional
Appeals
subject to appeals; they recommended appeals
only at the project-decision level. However, the
array of interest groups all protested this
recommendation, and the result was an
appeals process with broad access to nearly all
decisions of the Forest Service. In 1989, the
Forest Service narrowed the type of decisions
that could be appealed and split out certain
contract and business decisions into a different appeals process.
In 1992, the Forest Service proposed to
limit appeals to forest plans only and to replace
project appeals with a predecisional notice and
public-involvement system. In the fall of 1992,
Congress responded. It created a mandatory
project-level notice, comment, and appeals
process and directed the Forest Service to
“establish a notice and comment process for
proposed actions of the Forest Service concerning projects and activities implementing Land
and Resource Plans” and “to modify procedures
for appeal concerning such project.” Appeals
can be brought by people who provided comments during the 30-day comment period or
who otherwise expressed interest.
The Act was not limited as to which
decisions were affected, so it applies to mining
as well as all other activities. The law made no
express provisions for exemptions; however,
Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 215) interpreted the act and legislative history as allow-
A more specific question is whether the
large-landscape decisions should have a
predecisional appeals process. For the Forest
Service, the appeals process (36 CFR 217)
follows the publication of the ROD. The issues
raised do not have to have been raised in the
planning process. Appeals on Forest Plan
approvals and revisions must be filed within 90
days of the decision, and the Forest Service
has 160 days to respond to the appeal. However, given the size, complexity, and numbers
138
ing limited exceptions, including actions that
are categorically excluded under Forest Service
NEPA procedures, such as small timber sales,
small wildlife openings in a timber sale, and
others. The Act also provides for an automatic
“stay” on the project once an appeal is filed,
which in some cases can be overridden by an
“emergency finding” by the Chief. In these
regulations, a decision on the appeal must be
rendered by the agency in 45 days. If a formal
decision is not issued, a formal response will
5-5. Sustainability in Indian Communities
Managed Indian forests can serve as models of sustainability. Reservations are permanent
homelands where people live intimately with the environmental and economic consequences
of forest management. Indians want their forests for a complex mix of uses: timber harvest,
livestock grazing, hunting, plant gathering, firewood, fishing, scenic beauty, and spiritual
sanctuary; and they have a compelling need to balance competing interests. They are
committed to protecting the resources that are both their heritage and legacy.
The Menominee of Wisconsin are sustaining their way of life through managing their forest
for the production of timber. Yet the tribe also preserves species diversity within the forest,
citing the devastation of elm trees as evidence of the wisdom of species diversification.
Continued harvest of timber from their forest is part of the Menominee conception of the
good life. The forest has few trees older than the selected rotation age, although that rotation age is much longer than is common in industrial forestry, in order to produce quality
timber. Annual allowable cut is determined by observed growth in the previous planning
period. The Menominee use fossil-fuel-powered equipment in the forest. They have a lumber
mill, which provides employment and revenue, and they manage a major casino and engage
in other economic activities. As the population expands, residences are not allowed in the
forest; the tribe instead purchases new land for housing. Among the fundamental beliefs of
the Menominee is that the current generation is borrowing from its grandchildren; hence an
agreed-upon social goal is the maintenance of their forest and its productivity.
The Taos Pueblo in New Mexico sustains its culture through reliance on the watershed that
contains Blue Lake. The Taos, unlike the Menominee, do not use their forested land to
produce timber; wildlife and clean water are much more important to them. Blue Lake is
sacred and is kept undeveloped. People can drink directly from the stream. The Pueblo itself
sits on both sides of the stream, at the point where the stream leaves the watershed. The
traditional homes in the old Pueblo are not powered by electricity; the Taos thus restrict the
level of energy subsidy they accept from outside their ecosystem.
The two communities differ in the extent to which their lands are connected to the surrounding landscape. The Menominee Reservation is a forest amid dairy farms and cut-over lands;
the Taos Pueblo’s land contains most of a single watershed, with boundaries determined by
ridges. Both communities have outside economic connections. The non-Indian town of Taos
links the Pueblo to Hispanic and Anglo communities, which are potential sources of employment. With their international trade in wood products, the Menominee have global connections as well.
Cultural sustainability is the maintenance of a way of life linked to the past; defined by
family, community, and spiritual and aesthetic values; and shared by an entire group.
Conceptions of a good way of life differ among peoples, as do relationships with the land. Yet
for both Menominee and Taos, their place on the land partly defines their identity, which is,
in turn, reflected in their care for that place.
139
be given to the appellants on the disposition of
judicial review later. On the other hand, be-
their appeal.
cause the appeals process is postdecisional,
The crux of the difference, then, is when
appeals have the effect of providing an opportu-
the appeals process occurs and how the agency
nity for some groups to gain a little more of
needs to respond. In the case of the Bureau of
what they want after the agreements are
Land Management, the agency can respond to
reached by the larger public constituency.
predecisional protests by acknowledging them
Because of this problem of creating privileged
and explaining the rationale of its decisions. In
access, the Forest Service Chief often sends
the case of the Forest Service, the appeals
plans back to the particular national forest for
process follows the decision of field officers
reworking of specific problems raised in the
(regional forester for forest plans), and the chief
appeal rather than independently negotiating
is the reviewing officer (with the assistant
with the set of the public that brought the
secretary as a discretionary reviewing officer).
appeal outside of open, participatory processes.
Several important issues arise with the
The large-landscape plans will normally
Forest Service postdecisional approach. First,
involve a wide variety of agencies, governments,
because the chief is the reviewing officer, it is
organizations, groups, and citizens. Because
important for him to maintain independence
their purpose is to develop broad conservation
and objectivity in reviewing the evidence
strategies based upon a set of regional-level
presented. For this reason, it appears that the
issues, it seems that the ideal approach would
chief might be criticized for getting very in-
be for the agreements reached in the public-
volved in the earlier stages of controversy or to
participation processes to stand, except in
work closely with regional foresters when they
instances where there were omissions based on
are writing the ROD or reviewing appeals. As a
legal obligations or other actionable reasons.
result the “the agency works against itself” by
Thus, the predecisional appeals process,
isolating the decision makers from one an-
wherein minority views could be expressed to
other, just at the time that some internal
the decision makers before the decision, would
discussion might be useful.
provide this incentive to stay at the table and
Second, the USDA postdecisional appeals
work out differences substantively rather than
process can inhibit multiagency collaboration.
watching for procedural errors that could be
Bureau of Land Management appeals are
the basis of a lawsuit later.
predecisional. For both the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife,
there is no administrative appeals process, so
controversial issues are elevated to the Washington level fairly quickly. The Forest Service
Chief is the reviewing officer when the body of
evidence is put forward in Forest Service
postdecisional appeals.
Third, from the standpoint of interest
groups, there are mixed and inconsistent
incentives for their involvement in planning.
On the one hand, they want to be involved in
the planning process to influence the outcome.
In addition, they must to be involved to show
sufficient participation so that the courts would
recognize their credibility were they to seek
140
Recommendation
The Committee believes that the incentives contained in the proposed collaborativeplanning process are significantly different
from those provided by the previous approach
to planning. If the Forest Service is committed
to a collaborative approach that meaningfully
involves those who care about the national
forest system lands, then the incentives to
appeal planning decisions should be minimized. Our recommendation to the agency is,
just like all other aspects of this proposed
planning framework, to experiment with its
application and to monitor this aspect of its
implementation to determine what is accom-
Given statutory requirements for appeals
plished and what problems occur. If the
on projects, this issue is not easily resolved
appeals process proves problematic, influenc-
through internal administrative changes. The
ing parties to disregard their agreements or to
idea of treating small-landscape planning as
leave the table before agreements are reached,
more of an assessment may provide an interim
then the agency might evaluate the benefits of
approach in this evolutionary process, but is
shifting to a predecisional process similar to
likely to be inadequate in that it may create
that used by the BLM.
“pseudodecisions” that are not sufficiently
vetted through the NEPA process. In addition
Postdecisional
Appeals
to the difficulties of developing multiproject
EAs, there is an added problem when this level
of planning is treated as an ongoing process of
adaptive management based on monitoring
and external review.
A parallel question is how small-landscape planning can best address the requirements for project-level, postdecisional appeals.
The idea of small-landscape plans, with integrated sets of projects and activities implementing the strategic direction from the largelandscape plans, may be the most difficult to
achieve in the near term. Current statutory
requirements for postdecisional project-level
appeals increase the level of information,
analysis, and evidence necessary for making
individual project decisions sufficient to
withstand a legal challenge. As a result,
combining projects into multiproject environmental assessments (EAs) or EISs increases
Recommendation
Addressing the issue of project-level
appeals in a multiproject, integrated-planning
process should be an important priority as the
new planning process is developed in regulations and evolves in practice. The ideal of an
integrated small-landscape planning based on
adaptive-management practices will, no doubt,
take some time to be fully realized, but its
evolution will be greatly enhanced as planning,
decision, and appeals processes are harmonized across agencies.
the information and analysis demands so they
quickly become infeasible.
5D. Global Commitments Regarding Sustainability
The Santiago Agreement for the Conserva-
international reference for policymakers in the
tion and Sustainable Management of Temper-
formulation of national policies and a basis for
ate and Boreal Forests, signed on Feb. 3, 1995,
international cooperation aimed at supporting
is an important step forward in conserving
sustainable forest management.”
forest resources. The criteria and indicators, as
The Santiago agreement includes criteria
stated in the Declaration, “provide a common
and indicators for conservation and sustain-
framework for describing, assessing, and
able management of temperate and boreal
evaluating a country’s progress toward
forests. Seven criteria were developed:
sustainability at the national level. They are
not intended to assess directly sustainability at
the forest management unit level. As such, the
criteria and indicators should help provide an
1) Conservation of biological diversity
2) Maintenance of productive capacity
of forest ecosystems
141
5-6. Working Towards Economic and Social Sustainability
in the Eastern Sierra
A 300-mile-long region along California’s eastern boundary, the Eastern Sierra, includes a
diversity of landscapes and contains both the highest and lowest points in the continental
United States. Recreational opportunities abound, from Mammoth Mountain ski area to the
Ansel Adams Wilderness. Public and private landownership patterns overlap in the region,
and its economy is inextricably tied to the natural-resource base.
In 1991, Bill Bramlette, then District Ranger for the Inyo National Forest’s Mono Lake
Ranger District, and Nancy Upham, then Manager of the Mono Basin National Forest Scenic
Area, recognized the region’s dependence on the national forests for its tourism-based
economy, but also noted the increasing overuse of some areas, which was threatening the
ecological base. They were concerned that no mechanism existed for addressing the region’s
ecological and economic needs. Bramlette and Upham began working with representatives of
the chambers of commerce of Bishop and Mono counties, Mammoth Tourist Bureau, U.S.
Bureau of Land Management, and California Department of Fish and Game to organize a
public workshop on recreation in the Eastern Sierra. Approximately 200 people attended the
initial two-day public workshop, including representatives from public agencies, chambers
of commerce, private businesses, and environmental organizations. This meeting spawned
the formation of a group called the Coalition for Unified Recreation in the Eastern Sierra
(CURES).
During the ensuing six months, newly formed task groups met monthly to discuss and develop
strategies for a range of issues, from resource-planning to marketing and education. Each task
group had at least one representative from each of the following interest groups: private
recreation providers, local businesses, chambers of commerce, elected officials, public agencies, and environmentalists. By spring 1992, the coalition had evolved a formal structure and
mission. According to their mission statement, “CURES is dedicated to preserving the Eastern
Sierra’s natural, cultural, and economic resources and enriching the experiences of visitors
and residents.”
In mid-1992, CURES began to develop a vision statement describing what recreation in the
Eastern Sierra should look like in the year 2010. Upham, who facilitated these meetings,
sought common ground. She asserted that the region’s carrying capacity should not be
exceeded, and the group concurred; in their words, “a sustainable economy requires a
sustainable environment.” They discussed ways to market and manage the area’s recreation
potential, as well as ways to reduce use of areas that were already exceeding their carrying
capacity for recreation.
The CURES effort has had its share of tension and conflict. The group has helped address
conflicts by creating a special “Balancing Task Force,” charged with looking at the broad
economic and environmental issues facing the Eastern Sierra. Upham noted that the task
force sponsors forums to “get people together to learn about issues and be able to discuss
142
them in a noncombative way.” One environmental member of CURES commented that
opposing interests used to “fight it out through the newspaper,” but they now speak directly
to each another instead. In this way, the relationships among all groups in the larger
community have been strengthened, and the capacity for problem solving finally exists.
CURES has remained successful and intact as it has moved into its implementation phase.
The group has created an interpretive guide for visitor centers in the region and published a
trilingual activities map. In addition, CURES sponsored three educational seminars for local
businesses, attended by more than 200 people. The State Division of Tourism awarded
CURES its annual “Good Host” award for sponsoring the seminars. CURES also conducted
a marketing conversion study and has received a $1.5 million federal grant to develop a
scenic byway project in the Eastern Sierra, which will include 28 stops. CURES also installed an interactive computer system at a popular visitor kiosk in Inyo County. The
CURES process has now become an institution of sorts in the Eastern Sierra, allowing this
region to effectively link resources, knowledge, and energies in pursuing a shared goal of
ecological and economic sustainability.
CURES is succeeding because of the initiative and commitment of two Forest Service
employees. They provided the critical initial forum in which public dialogue could begin and
a common vision could be crafted. The process that evolved from their efforts has taken on
a life of its own and has broad participation of all interests across the region. It has been
instrumental in building understanding of the role of the national forests in this region’s
economy and has provided a structure within which problems are solved, plans are developed, and an ecologically sound and economically sustainable future is pursued.
3) Maintenance of forest ecosystem
forest-dependent species and (2) the status
health and vitality
(rare, threatened, endangered, or extinct) of
4) Conservation and maintenance of
soil and water resources
5) Maintenance of forest contribution
to global carbon cycles
6) Maintenance and enhancement of
forest-dependent species at risk of not maintaining viable breeding populations, as determined by scientific assessment or dictated by
legislation.
We have a number of observations about
the criteria and indicators:
long-term multiple socioeconomic
1) The criteria and indicators are
benefits to meet the needs of society
explicitly established with national and
7) Legal, institutional, and economic
international perspectives. The decen-
framework for forest conservation and
nial assessment called for by the Forest
sustainable management.
and Rangeland Renewable Resources
A number of indicators are listed under
Planning Act of 1974 would be the
each criterion. For example, the first criterion
logical vehicle for aggregating and
(conservation of biological diversity) is subdi-
reporting the state of the lands of the
vided into ecosystem diversity, species diver-
United States relative to the criteria
sity, and genetic diversity; two criteria are
and indicators, and the regional
listed under species diversity: (1) the number of
assessments recommended in this
143
report could assist in gathering the
forest ecosystems” does not appear to
needed data.
include the amount of dead trees for
2) In addition, the criteria and indicators
wildlife habitat as an indicator.
could provide a set of considerations for
Undoubtedly, these indicators will be
examining regional conditions, as well.
improved through time.
Indeed, as countries become proficient
2) They are generally nonspatial and
at developing and measuring indicators
seem to lack a landscape view. They
related to these criteria, it is critical that
focus on measuring acres in certain
indicators are chosen that monitor
condition without the aggregation
progress at different geographic scales.
needed for judgments about areas. The
Otherwise, it would be difficult to relate
lack of integrative concepts on the use
progress at the watershed or community
of the indicators may make it difficult
level to achievement of national bench-
to use them to make overall judgments.
marks and goals.
3) They could consume much of the
While acknowledging their potential
agency’s resources for inventorying
usefulness, the Committee has a number of
and monitoring, leaving little to other
qualifications about the use of these indicators
important measures of sustainability.
for gauging sustainability on the National
Clearly, working to link the kinds of
Forest System lands:
monitoring activities on the national forests and
1) They may not be sufficient, by
grasslands with the indicators of national-level
themselves, to gauge ecological
sustainability for these important public lands
sustainability. As an example, the
will be a challenge in the coming decades.
“maintenance of productive capacity of
5E. Summary
Bringing scientific credibility to the
tion of commitment and trust. These proposi-
management plans and activities of the Forest
tions are not abstract symbols; there are many
Service is essential for a collaborative-planning
successful examples around the country both
process to work. Trust can be built through
within the Forest Service and involving other
mutual understanding and agreement on basic
highly contentious natural-resource-policy
information. Understanding the role of the
issues involving other federal and state agen-
public in collaborative planning is much more
cies. The experience is there to address the
than simply providing “issues” of concern and
issues outlined in this chapter; the challenge is
“comments” on options and should lead to a
to do so with enthusiasm.
richer base of information as well as a founda-
144